|
|
Post by George on Jan 18, 2020 9:26:37 GMT -6
If I was the BOD and mgmt. at the AHA, I would start looking past any perks and/or kickbacks this company is providing them and start looking at their performance in actually doing the job they have been hired to do.
There have been TOO MANY instances of inaccurate results in their testing - and those are the ones that I KNOW about.
I can only imagine what the TRUE error rate is!
|
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 18, 2020 9:34:02 GMT -6
Post by rockmillsherefords on Jan 18, 2020 9:34:02 GMT -6
It must polled dna and L1 dna are so close to one another it's hard to tell them apart.  |
|
|
|
Post by George on Jan 18, 2020 9:45:40 GMT -6
It must polled dna and L1 dna are so close to one another it's hard to tell them apart. LOL! Good one! Based on what I am seeing in my herd, Paul, those two gene pools are pretty widely separated - in those genes pertaining to doability and docility anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Jan 18, 2020 9:51:32 GMT -6
A paternity test compares the DNA of the offspring to that of the Father. I think you are correct there can not be a "false negative" but there can be a false positive since the test is basically "an exclusion test" and the whole population is not tested. In human court cases the probability has to be 99.9%, I am not sure what the confidence level required by Geneseek or the AHA are, but believe a false positive is certainly a slight possibility.
This also reconciles in my mind with why the test result you receive just says "qualifies".
|
|
redgem
Weanling
Enter your message here...
Posts: 107 
|
Post by redgem on Jan 18, 2020 10:37:43 GMT -6
My question is why in today's computer world the data base accepts wrong data and it's up to someone to catch it.
If this was a middle of the road hiefer no one may have noticed until a good bull shows up in 2 or 3 generation.
|
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jan 18, 2020 15:22:27 GMT -6
I have seen too many reports of illogical results from the lab that the AHA uses that were corrected upon retesting to blindly accept illogical results without knowing they have been rechecked. If those results are indeed correct, then this bull is special, IMO. By pedigree, he doesn't have any of the L1 blood of those L1 bulls that I am wary of and there is nothing in the non L1 part of his pedigree that I hate. I would be interested in using him. Edited to add: On one of our cattle trips, Glenn and I found a polled bull in a group of yearling bulls of a horned (primary L1)breeder - one of the best bulls in the group. The breeder presented that bull to us as "one of those mutations". That got me interested really fast! But when we got to check the pedigree of the bull, there was not only polled blood in the bottom quarter of his pedigree but some Titan 23D as well. Polled back in the pedigree doesn't matter. If the parents were actually horned (pp) they can't pass on a big P, basic genetics. You had another one there! A neighbor had one a year or two ago out of a small herd. I'll have to check what became of that calf and if it was ever verified. I think it happens more than we know, most people just don't think of it as earth-shattering because it's always happened. I think if it even happens it is very rare. I base this on my experiences and those of many long time cattlemen and cowboys who I've know. There was an order buyer in the early 60's who had an order for any polled calves from horned cattle. His buyer was offering a sizeable incentive for any. He never found any and that during the time Herefords were dominant. This is just one instance of many I can mention. I |
|
|
|
Post by George on Jan 22, 2020 0:50:59 GMT -6
The bull's information is back up on the AHA website - but it is a whole new pedigree! Top and bottom! He is not so interesting to me now! All that Line 1 breeding disappeared! link |
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 22, 2020 7:33:24 GMT -6
Post by rockmillsherefords on Jan 22, 2020 7:33:24 GMT -6
The bull's information is back up on the AHA website - but it is a whole new pedigree! Top and bottom! He is not so interesting to me now! All that Line 1 breeding disappeared! linkLooks like a calf swap with lot 45. |
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 22, 2020 9:31:06 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by George on Jan 22, 2020 9:31:06 GMT -6
The bull's information is back up on the AHA website - but it is a whole new pedigree! Top and bottom! He is not so interesting to me now! All that Line 1 breeding disappeared! linkLooks like a calf swap with lot 45. Lot 45 has horns! Imagine that! |
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 22, 2020 10:36:31 GMT -6
via mobile
redgem likes this
Post by George on Jan 22, 2020 10:36:31 GMT -6
So they (AHA) didn't parent verify before posting the results, wonder how many more slipped through that no one flagged. Ding! Ding! Ding! Are they even bothering to test for parental verification? Or maybe it's a case of: "Ol' Dale runs a good operation. So we will just save the cost of running these and "rubber stamp" them." How much faith do you have in ALL that testing being correct now, kph? |
|
redgem
Weanling
Enter your message here...
Posts: 107
|
Post by redgem on Jan 22, 2020 10:55:32 GMT -6
The 9230g calf was an et and not check. Oops x2
|
|
|
|
Post by kph on Jan 22, 2020 16:23:29 GMT -6
So they (AHA) didn't parent verify before posting the results, wonder how many more slipped through that no one flagged. Ding! Ding! Ding! Are they even bothering to test for parental verification? Or maybe it's a case of: "Ol' Dale runs a good operation. So we will just save the cost of running these and "rubber stamp" them." How much faith do you have in ALL that testing being correct now, kph? Not much. I'd say the lab has some 'splaining to do! |
|
|
|
Post by George on Jan 22, 2020 16:52:02 GMT -6
And this is the reason that a forum like Hereford Talk is needed!
Do you think you will see anything about this in the Hereford World?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Jan 22, 2020 19:34:44 GMT -6
The real question is how much shoddy work like this just ‘goes through’, never challenged, never a second thought given? I bet it’s a high enough % to make you puke if there was truly a way to know.
|
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 22, 2020 21:39:35 GMT -6
via mobile
Glenn likes this
Post by elkwc on Jan 22, 2020 21:39:35 GMT -6
All but one animal in the 4 generation pedigree DNA tested, straight horned. Oh you nonbelievers! KPH I guess the non believers were right again. I'm one of those that it rarely if ever happens. |
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 23, 2020 0:03:15 GMT -6
Post by strojanherefords on Jan 23, 2020 0:03:15 GMT -6
Ding! Ding! Ding! Are they even bothering to test for parental verification? Or maybe it's a case of: "Ol' Dale runs a good operation. So we will just save the cost of running these and "rubber stamp" them." How much faith do you have in ALL that testing being correct now, kph? Not much. I'd say the lab has some 'splaining to do! As far as we can tell, the lab didn't make a mistake this time. The lab received samples from a horned cow, horned bull, polled calf; and reported that the bull and the cow were horned and the calf was heterozygous polled. It was a matter of the AHA looking the other way while Dale was looking to pull one over, again. I have talked here before about the trouble I had with Dale. Afterwords, I had private conversations where I learned that he had a pattern of leaving not treating people right. |
|
|
|
Post by George on Jan 23, 2020 2:48:21 GMT -6
Not much. I'd say the lab has some 'splaining to do! As far as we can tell, the lab didn't make a mistake this time. The lab received samples from a horned cow, horned bull, polled calf; and reported that the bull and the cow were horned and the calf was heterozygous polled. It was a matter of the AHA looking the other way while Dale was looking to pull one over, again. I have talked here before about the trouble I had with Dale. Afterwords, I had private conversations where I learned that he had a pattern of leaving not treating people right. So, the parentage verification of that polled calf being from those two horned parents doesn't count as a mistake??? |
|
redgem
Weanling
Enter your message here...
Posts: 107
|
Post by redgem on Jan 23, 2020 7:50:31 GMT -6
In my opinion there's multiple misstake at multiple different places. First the lab should have caught at least that the Bulls were not the right sires and probably the cows were tested so therefore know that the the cows were not the right Cows and then you also have the AHA database accepting false information which should be flagged and then the breeder who didn't have it double-checked knowing that they probably were wrong.
What's even more concerning is the one calf was an ET so should have been caught and it was two calves not done right.
As was said how many more go unchecked.
|
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 23, 2020 8:11:19 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by strojanherefords on Jan 23, 2020 8:11:19 GMT -6
As far as we can tell, the lab didn't make a mistake this time. The lab received samples from a horned cow, horned bull, polled calf; and reported that the bull and the cow were horned and the calf was heterozygous polled. It was a matter of the AHA looking the other way while Dale was looking to pull one over, again. I have talked here before about the trouble I had with Dale. Afterwords, I had private conversations where I learned that he had a pattern of leaving not treating people right. So, the parentage verification of that polled calf being from those two horned parents doesn't count as a mistake??? I would like to see a copy of the original lab results. I suspect that those records will show that the AHA registered 9227G while knowing that he didn’t qualify to his parents. |
|
|
|
Post by rockmillsherefords on Jan 23, 2020 17:43:45 GMT -6
So they (AHA) didn't parent verify before posting the results, wonder how many more slipped through that no one flagged. Ding! Ding! Ding! Are they even bothering to test for parental verification? Or maybe it's a case of: "Ol' Dale runs a good operation. So we will just save the cost of running these and "rubber stamp" them." How much faith do you have in ALL that testing being correct now, kph? Some years back before DNA testing, I was on the phone with one of the AHA staff going over sorting some papers out for a cow, during the conversation she told me at that time they never checked parentage unless someone pointed out there was a problem, looks like today they have the same mindset. |
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 23, 2020 18:04:08 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by timbernt on Jan 23, 2020 18:04:08 GMT -6
I was told the same thing a few years ago. I was told a couple of years ago that it is SOP now. For whatever it is worth, Ward seems to be making an effort to protect the breed from new alterations. The problem I see is what has happened in the last 20 years. I personally believe the most egregious "mistakes" are by newcomers with no allegiance or knowledge of the breed. They don't seem to be able to recognize when it doesn't add up. Mostly on the polled side.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjbcattleco on Jan 24, 2020 9:48:14 GMT -6
So, the parentage verification of that polled calf being from those two horned parents doesn't count as a mistake??? I would like to see a copy of the original lab results. I suspect that those records will show that the AHA registered 9227G while knowing that he didn’t qualify to his parents. I'm sure the bull was registered before DNA was sent in which is standard practice. This to me was obviously a simple mistake and thinking that it's something more with zero facts to support otherwise is complete nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by rockmillsherefords on Jan 24, 2020 18:07:35 GMT -6
I was told the same thing a few years ago. I was told a couple of years ago that it is SOP now. For whatever it is worth, Ward seems to be making an effort to protect the breed from new alterations. The problem I see is what has happened in the last 20 years. I personally believe the most egregious "mistakes" are by newcomers with no allegiance or knowledge of the breed. They don't seem to be able to recognize when it doesn't add up. Mostly on the polled side. I would expect most newcomers are polled hobby breeders, dictates what the odds are a little. |
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 25, 2020 12:08:12 GMT -6
elkwc likes this
Post by strojanherefords on Jan 25, 2020 12:08:12 GMT -6
I would like to see a copy of the original lab results. I suspect that those records will show that the AHA registered 9227G while knowing that he didn’t qualify to his parents. I'm sure the bull was registered before DNA was sent in which is standard practice. This to me was obviously a simple mistake and thinking that it's something more with zero facts to support otherwise is complete nonsense. I know what I am talking about. When I bought cows from Canada a few years ago, I got a few polled cows. But when I registered them here, the cows were listed as horned. I got lucky with one of the cows and she raised three nice polled bull calves. Each time, I tried to register the calves, I got a message from the AHA telling me that there was a problem with the calf being polled but it allowed me to register the incompatible calves anyway. The last one ( VS 41X JACK MARK 814F (P44018595) I registered at approximately the same time as the 9227G calf. I have committed libel sue me. |
|
|
|
oops!
Jan 25, 2020 21:01:26 GMT -6
Post by rockmillsherefords on Jan 25, 2020 21:01:26 GMT -6
I'm sure the bull was registered before DNA was sent in which is standard practice. This to me was obviously a simple mistake and thinking that it's something more with zero facts to support otherwise is complete nonsense. I know what I am talking about. When I bought cows from Canada a few years ago, I got a few polled cows. But when I registered them here, the cows were listed as horned. I got lucky with one of the cows and she raised three nice polled bull calves. Each time, I tried to register the calves, I got a message from the AHA telling me that there was a problem with the calf being polled but it allowed me to register the incompatible calves anyway. The last one ( VS 41X JACK MARK 814F (P44018595) I registered at approximately the same time as the 9227G calf. I have committed libel sue me. Well it's nice to see they've really tightened up the registration process  Couple errors there probably not their fault, but allowing the reg. anyway. Geez! |
|
Couple errors there probably not their fault, but allowing the reg. anyway. Geez!